UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) v. ) Crim. No GAO
|
|
- Elizabeth Taylor
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Case 1:13-cr GAO Document 315 Filed 05/21/14 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) v. ) Crim. No GAO DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV ) ) DEFENDANT S RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT S MOTION FOR LIST OF MITIGATING FACTORS Defendant, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, by and through counsel, respectfully files his response to the Government s Motion for List of Mitigating Factors. [DE 294] In that motion, the government asks that the Court require the defendant to provide a list of the mitigating factors on which he intends to rely at sentencing at least 30 days before the deadline for submitting jury questionnaires. The government s request comports with neither the constitutional and statutory framework for capital trials under the Federal Death Penalty Act nor the practical realties of trial procedure in such cases, and should be denied. Indeed, undersigned counsel are not aware of a supplemental juror questionnaire in a federal capital case where a list of mitigating factors, specific to a case, has been included. 1. The Federal Death Penalty Act does not support the government s unprecedented request The government seeks an advance look at the defendant s basic arguments for life essentially, his theory for why he should be allowed to live if convicted. And in this context, the government acknowledges, as it must, that the Federal Death Penalty Act imposes only upon the government and not the defendant a duty to file pretrial notice of the sentencing factors upon which it will rely. See 18 U.S.C. 3593(a).
2 Case 1:13-cr GAO Document 315 Filed 05/21/14 Page 2 of 7 The failure to expressly require defense notice of mitigating factors is not the only way in which the FDPA accords starkly different treatment to aggravating and mitigating factors. The FDPA requires that aggravating factors be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and to the unanimous satisfaction of all 12 jurors, while a mitigating factor may be found by a mere preponderance and, once found by even a single juror, it may be weighed in the sentencing calculus. 18 U.S.C. 3593(c), (d). Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, while the FDPA sets out a list of eight nonexclusive statutory mitigating factors, 18 U.S.C. 3592(a), there is no requirement that any list of mitigating factors be prepared as such. In practice, of course, the defense prepares such a list in order to focus the jury on some of the reasons why a client should be spared execution and for inclusion on a verdict sheet. But nothing about that practice requires or implies advance disclosure to the government. The handful of district court cases the government cites provide little support for the relief it seeks. In United States v. Catalan Roman, 376 F.Supp.2d 108 (D PR 2005), the court s memorandum opinion began as follows: The issue presented is one of narrow compass, concerning whether the Court may compel a capital defendant to notice and disclose non-mental expert mitigation in advance of the sentencing phase, where that defendant spurns reciprocal disclosure. (Emphasis added). The court answered that question in the affirmative, but Catalan Roman neither says nor implies anything about whether a capital defendant may be compelled to disclose the reasons why he should not be sentenced to death, if convicted, to the government, the public, and the jury panel long before he has even been tried. In United States v. Wilson, 493 F.Supp.2d 464 (EDNY 2006), the court, with little discussion, ordered the defense to provide notice of mitigating factors four days after the scheduled start of trial. And the trial court s - 2 -
3 Case 1:13-cr GAO Document 315 Filed 05/21/14 Page 3 of 7 omnibus pretrial order in United States v. Taveras, 2006 WL , *9 (EDNY 2006) contained a brief and largely unexplained reference to a previous order requiring the defendant to furnish his list of mitigating factors prior to trial. In short, Wilson and Taveras appear to be the only cases out of roughly 250 federal capital trials over the past nearly 25 years in which federal district courts have ordered capital defendants to disclose to the government before trial (or in Wilson, four days into trial) the mitigating factors upon which they plan to rely in the event of conviction. And as the government acknowledges, Mot. at 3, not even in these few cases did the court order disclosure prior to the due date for the government s proposed jury questionnaire. Other federal courts to have considered that issue have declined to impose such a requirement on the accused. Illustrative of these is the relatively recent unpublished order in United States v. McCluskey, Case 1:10-cr JCH, DE 1072 (D. N.M. July 2, 2013), attached as Exhibit A. There, faced with a government request for disclosure of a list of defense penalty phase witnesses, as well as mitigating factors, 30 days before trial (but not before the filing of proposed jury questionnaires), the Court noted that that the government already had some indications of McCluskey s mitigating factors and penalty phase witnesses, and... has already conducted substantial investigations, and concluded: In exercising its inherent authority, the Court must balance McCluskey s constitutional rights, the Government's right of meaningful rebuttal, and the interest of the parties and the Court in fairness and judicial efficiency. See [United States v]. Beckford, 962 F. Supp. [748], 763 [(E.D. Va. 1997)]. The Court concludes that the Government has not justified its request for pretrial disclosure of McCluskey s penalty phase witnesses and mitigating factors. The Court orders that McCluskey disclose his lists of proposed mitigating factors and penalty phase witnesses on the next business day after a guilty verdict, if one is returned by the jury. Id., Mem. Op. at
4 Case 1:13-cr GAO Document 315 Filed 05/21/14 Page 4 of 7 2. Congress has already rejected the very notice requirement that the government proposes here. Apparently dissatisfied with the asymmetry of its notice obligations under the FDPA, the Justice Department supported legislation in the 110th Congress that would have amended 18 USC 3593 to add a new section, proposed 18 U.S.C. 3593(b)(1), as follows: (1) If, as required under subsection (a), the government has filed notice seeking a sentence of death, the defendant shall, a reasonable time before the trial, sign and file with the court and serve on the attorney for the government, notice setting forth the mitigating factor or factors that the defendant proposes to prove mitigate against imposition of a sentence of death... ) Congressional Research Service, CRS Report for Congress, THE DEATH PENALTY: CAPITAL PUNISHMENT LEGISLATION IN THE 110TH CONGRESS (2007) at 12. Following a hearing before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations on March 30, 2006, at which a Fifth Amendment objection was directed at the notice-of-mitigation proposal, Congress took no further action on the proposed FDPA amendments, and no proposal to require defense notice of mitigating factors has been reintroduced in the years since then. The Fifth Amendment objection to mandatory pretrial notice of mitigating factors is substantial no defendant can announce that he intends to rely on many of the statutory mitigating factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3592(a), e.g., impaired capacity, duress, minor participation, equally culpable defendants and mental or emotional disturbance, without also effectively admitting that he committed the charged offense. That is why the Federal Death Penalty Act, like every modern capital sentencing statute, segregates the determination of punishment from the adjudication of guilt or innocence, and why federal law takes great care to ensure that pretrial litigation - 4 -
5 Case 1:13-cr GAO Document 315 Filed 05/21/14 Page 5 of 7 concerning punishment does not encroach upon the presumption of innocence and the right against compelled self-incrimination. E.g., Fed. R. Crim. P. 12.2(c)(2) (withholding from the government all results of defendant s pretrial mental health evaluations until after conviction). Like the ill-fated 2006 legislative proposal to force such early disclosure of mitigating factors, the government s request here seems oblivious to this fundamental precept of death penalty sentencing procedure. To be sure, there can be many reasons why any given bill fails to win Congressional approval, and so, as a general matter, courts are chary of attributing significance to Congress' failure to act. United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U.S. 121, 137 (1985). But given that the government relies so heavily on the Court s discretionary authority under Rule 57(b) to regulate practice in the district court, Mot. at 2, it seems appropriate to accord some significance to the Justice Department s fairly recent failure to persuade Congress of the value and the constitutionality of a less intrusive version of what it wishes the Court to order here. 3. Even if the Fifth Amendment and the FDPA permitted the relief requested, granting it would further none of the government s stated objectives. Finally, it remains to consider the practical value of what the government seeks: a listing of mitigating factors for its own use in drafting a proposed jury questionnaire to be filled out by prospective jurors before the Court evaluates their qualifications to serve. As a general matter, the defense agrees with the government that to be meaningful, voir dire examination of prospective jurors in death penalty cases must be framed in terms of the case to be tried. United States v. Fell, 372 F. Supp. 2d 766, (D. Vt. 2005); United States v. Johnson, 366 F. Supp. 2d 822, , 848 (N.D. Iowa 2005); United States v. Burgos, 2012 WL (D. P.R. 2012). But the government never suggests - 5 -
6 Case 1:13-cr GAO Document 315 Filed 05/21/14 Page 6 of 7 how it could possibly utilize the information from a defense-generated list of mitigating factors in a jury questionnaire. A list of mitigating factors from the defense is also inadequate to serve the government s stated objectives because, under 18 U.S.C. 3592(a), jurors are not limited to considering those mitigating factors cited by the defense. ( In determining whether a sentence of death is to be imposed on a defendant, the finder of fact shall consider any mitigating factor, including... (8) [o]ther factors in the defendant s background, record, or character or any other circumstance of the offense that mitigate against imposition of the death sentence. ) In sum, the government s expressed concerns are more theoretical than real. To the extent that it needs to know what mitigating factors may prove relevant in determining juror impartiality, it already knows what those factors are, or can figure them out easily enough. The government has no need of such information from the defense to craft its own proposed jury questionnaire, and will not need such a list of mitigating factors in order to know which questions to ask prospective jurors once jury selection begins. This vanishingly small government interest in early defense disclosure is far outweighed by the statutory and constitutional protections that the government seeks to displace by its request
7 Case 1:13-cr GAO Document 315 Filed 05/21/14 Page 7 of 7 Conclusion For the forgoing reasons, the Court should deny the government s motion to require the defendant to file a list of mitigating factors 30 days before whatever date the Court may set for submission of jury questionnaires. Dated: May 21, 2014 Respectfully Submitted, DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV By his attorneys /s/ David I. Bruck Judy Clarke, Esq. (CA Bar# 76071) CLARKE & RICE, APC 1010 Second Avenue, Suite 1800 San Diego, CA (619) JUDYCLARKE@JCSRLAW.NET David I. Bruck, Esq. (SC Bar # 967) 220 Sydney Lewis Hall Lexington, VA (540) BRUCKD@WLU.EDU Miriam Conrad, Esq. (BBO # ) Timothy Watkins, Esq. (BBO # ) William Fick, Esq. (BBO # ) FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICE 51 Sleeper Street, 5th Floor (617) MIRIAM_CONRAD@FD.ORG TIMOTHY_WATKINS@FD.ORG WILLIAM_FICK@FD.ORG Certificate of Service I hereby certify that this document filed through the ECF system will be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) and paper copies will be sent to those indicated as non-registered participants on May 21, /s/ Judy Clarke - 7 -
8 Case 1:13-cr GAO Document Filed 05/21/14 Page 1 of 6 EXHIBIT A
9 Case 1:13-cr GAO 1:10-cr JCH Document Filed 07/02/13 05/21/14 Page 12 of 56 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, vs. Cr. No JCH JOHN CHARLES McCLUSKEY, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on United States' Motion To Compel Discovery of Mitigating Factors and Penalty Phase Witnesses [Doc. No. 997]. The Court has reviewed the motion, response [Doc. No. 1024], and reply [Doc. No. 1056], together with the authorities cited. The Court concludes that the motion should be granted to the extent that it requests discovery of McCluskey s lists of mitigating factors and penalty phase witnesses, but denied as to the requested time for discovery; if a guilty verdict is returned, the Court orders that McCluskey provide discovery on the next business day after that verdict. BACKGROUND By dated May 3, 2013, the Government requested McCluskey to disclose his penalty phase witnesses and the mitigating factors on which he intended to rely. [Doc. No , p. 1; Doc. No. 997, p. 1] McCluskey responded that he was willing to provide a witness list on the same timeline as in Lujan, referring to disclosure on the same day as the verdict if a guilty verdict is returned. [Doc. No. 1024, p. 12; Doc. No , p. 1] Trial is set to begin on July 22, The Government requests the Court to compel McCluskey to disclose his lists of proposed mitigating factors and penalty phase witnesses "at least 30 days before the commencement of jury selection." [Doc. No. 997, p. 8]
10 Case 1:13-cr GAO 1:10-cr JCH Document Filed 07/02/13 05/21/14 Page 23 of 56 DISCUSSION McCluskey does not object to providing discovery of mitigating factors and penalty phase witness list, but he opposes the Government's request that this discovery be provided before the guilt phase. McCluskey does not oppose providing a list of mitigating factors "from 0-5 days following a guilt verdict." [Doc. No. 1024, p. 10] In an exchange between the parties, McCluskey agreed to provide his witness list on the same day as the verdict, if the jury returns a guilty verdict. [Doc. No , p. 1; Doc. No. 1024, p. 12] The Government recognizes that the FDPA requires the Government to give pretrial notice of aggravating factors, and does not impose a reciprocal duty on the defendant to provide notice of mitigating factors. 18 U.S.C. 3593(a). The Government argues, however, that the Court should exercise its inherent authority to require pretrial disclosure by McCluskey in order to avoid delay before the penalty phase; the Government contends that it may otherwise request a continuance to allow time to prepare to meet McCluskey's penalty phase presentation. The FDPA does require that the Government "be permitted to rebut any information" presented in the penalty phase and "be given fair opportunity to present argument as to the adequacy of the information to establish the existence of any aggravating or mitigating factor, and as to the appropriateness in the case of imposing a sentence of death." 18 U.S.C. 3593(c). To implement this right, and also to prevent delay before a penalty phase, the Government argues that the Court should require the disclosures under its inherent authority. Rule 57(b) provides that, when there is no controlling law: "A judge may regulate practice in any manner consistent with federal law, these rules, and the local rules of the district." Fed. R. Crim. P. 57(b). The Court concludes that the FDPA "clearly does not purport to provide a comprehensive penalty phase procedure," and that the Court may therefore use its 2
11 Case 1:13-cr GAO 1:10-cr JCH Document Filed 07/02/13 05/21/14 Page 34 of 56 inherent authority under Rule 57(b) to require disclosure if warranted. United States v. Catalan Roman, 376 F. Supp. 2d 108, 112 (D.P.R. 2005); see United States v. Edelin, 134 F. Supp. 2d 45, (D.D.C. 2001) (involving prior 21 U.S.C. 848); United States v. Beckford, 962 F. Supp. 748, (E.D. Va. 1997) (involving prior 21 U.S.C. 848). The Court concludes that disclosure is justified to implement the Government's right to rebuttal under 3593(c). See Catalan Roman, 376 F. Supp. 2d at 115. The right to rebuttal would be illusory if there is unfair surprise and an inadequate opportunity for preparation and investigation. See id. (explicit provision of right to rebuttal requires facilitation of meaningful rebuttal). Judge Brack in Lujan held that "the policies underlying the FDPA and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure support the disclosure of penalty-phase information by the defendant." United States v. Lujan, Cr. No RB, Doc. No. 1212, p. 3 (filed 8/24/11) [Doc. No , p. 3]; see Catalan Roman, 376 F. Supp. 2d at 115; United States v. Wilson, 493 F. Supp. 2d 348, 354 (E.D.N.Y. 2006). Disclosure promotes the "fair and efficient administration of justice" and an "informed sentencing determination." Catalan Roman, 376 F. Supp. 2d at 114. Adequate preparation, facilitated by disclosure of mitigating factors and witnesses, "will contribute to the truth-seeking process, resulting in a more reliable sentencing determination." Id. The remaining question is the timing of McCluskey's disclosure. McCluskey argues that pretrial disclosure would compromise his constitutional rights, including his Fifth Amendment due process rights and his Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel, and possibly infringe on attorney work product privilege. [Doc. No. 1024, pp. 5-7] McCluskey also contends that forcing him to reveal defense strategies for sentencing may allow the Government to use this information to modify its presentation in the guilt phase. [Doc. No. 1024, p. 7] Although these 3
12 Case 1:13-cr GAO 1:10-cr JCH Document Filed 07/02/13 05/21/14 Page 45 of 56 are only suggestions of possible infringement on McCluskey's rights, the Court observes that it is the Government's burden to justify its disclosure request not McCluskey's burden to definitively demonstrate prejudice. The authorities cited by the parties do not persuasively support disclosure before a guilty verdict is returned. See, e.g., Catalan Roman, 376 F. Supp. 2d at 110 (disclosure ordered for the day before penalty phase, about three weeks after guilty verdict). Judge Brack denied a similar motion for pretrial disclosure in Lujan, 1 and later granted disclosure after the guilty verdict. Lujan, Cr. No RB [Docs. No & 997-3]. The Government observes that the Wilson court ordered pretrial disclosure of mitigating factors; however, the cited opinion contains little analysis on the issue of timing, merely making a conclusory statement that the defendant would not be prejudiced. [Doc. No. 1056, p. 4] United States v. Wilson, 493 F. Supp. 2d 464, 466 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (ordering disclosure by Dec. 1, 2006, with trial set to commence Nov. 27, 2006). In determining how to exercise the Court's inherent authority, Wilson is therefore not persuasive. The Court recognizes that a lengthy delay between the guilt and penalty phases carries some risks increasing the burden on jurors already facing a lengthy trial, increasing the chance of some juror becoming unavailable, and requiring jurors additional effort to clearly remember trial evidence. See Edelin, 134 F. Supp. 2d at 57. However, the Court also recognizes that the Government has some indications of McCluskey's mitigating factors and penalty phase witnesses, and that the Government has already conducted substantial investigations. The Court 1 Although the Government asserts that the situation was different in Lujan, the Government is incorrect. [Doc. No. 997, p. 7] The motion for pretrial disclosure in Lujan, as in McCluskey's case, requested both mitigating factors and penalty phase witness list, as McCluskey points out. [Doc. No. 1024, p. 3 n.1; Doc. No ] 4
13 Case 1:13-cr GAO 1:10-cr JCH Document Filed 07/02/13 05/21/14 Page 56 of 56 does not anticipate that a lengthy delay before penalty phase will be required to give the Government sufficient time to prepare. In exercising its inherent authority, the Court must balance McCluskey's constitutional rights, the Government's right of meaningful rebuttal, and the interest of the parties and the Court in fairness and judicial efficiency. See Beckford, 962 F. Supp. at 763. The Court concludes that the Government has not justified its request for pretrial disclosure of McCluskey's penalty phase witnesses and mitigating factors. The Court orders that McCluskey disclose his lists of proposed mitigating factors and penalty phase witnesses on the next business day after a guilty verdict, if one is returned by the jury. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that United States' Motion To Compel Discovery of Mitigating Factors and Penalty Phase Witnesses [Doc. No. 997] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as explained above. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1038 Filed 02/15/15 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CRIMINAL NO. 13-10200-GAO DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV MOTION FOR
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) v. ) Crim. No GAO ) DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV )
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 290 Filed 05/07/14 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) v. ) Crim. No. 13-10200-GAO ) DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV ) MOTION
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS FOURTH MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1108 Filed 03/02/15 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) No. 13-CR-10200-GAO v. ) ) DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV ) FOURTH
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) No. 13-CR GAO v. ) ) DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV )
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 745 Filed 12/15/14 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) No. 13-CR-10200-GAO v. ) ) DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV ) MOTION
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) CRIMINAL NO GAO ) DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV )
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 718 Filed 12/08/14 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) CRIMINAL NO. 13-10200-GAO ) DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV ) DEFENDANT
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) v. ) Crim. No GAO ) DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV )
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 289 Filed 05/07/14 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) v. ) Crim. No. 13-10200-GAO ) DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV ) MOTION
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) v. ) CRIMINAL NO GAO ) DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV )
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 288 Filed 05/07/14 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) v. ) CRIMINAL NO. 13-10200-GAO ) DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV )
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) v. ) CRIMINAL NO GAO ) DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV )
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 291 Filed 05/07/14 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) v. ) CRIMINAL NO. 13-10200-GAO ) DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV )
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Crim. No GAO v. ) ) ) DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV )
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 69 Filed 07/15/13 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Crim. No. 13-10200-GAO v. ) ) ) DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV ) MOTION
More informationCase 1:13-cr GAO Document 359 Filed 06/09/14 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 359 Filed 06/09/14 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. No. 13-CR-10200-GAO DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV DEFENDANT S REPLY
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) No. 13-CR GAO v. ) ) ) DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV )
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 438 Filed 07/25/14 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) No. 13-CR-10200-GAO v. ) ) ) DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV ) RENEWED
More informationDocket No In The United States Court of Appeals For The First Circuit UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Appellee DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV
Docket No. 16-6001 In The United States Court of Appeals For The First Circuit UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Appellee v. DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV Defendant - Appellant MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL ON APPEAL The Defendant-Appellant,
More informationCase 1:13-cr GAO Document 648 Filed 11/10/14 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 648 Filed 11/10/14 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) Crim. No.13-10200-GAO ) DZHOKHAR A. TSARNAEV, ) Defendant
More informationCase 1:13-mj MBB Document 15 Filed 04/29/13 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Case 1:13-mj-02106-MBB Document 15 Filed 04/29/13 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS Magistrate Judge No. 13-2106-MBB UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. BOWLER, U.S.M.J. DZHOKHAR
More informationCase 1:13-cr GAO Document 577 Filed 09/24/14 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CRIMINAL NO.
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 577 Filed 09/24/14 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CRIMINAL NO. 13-10200-GAO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DZHOKHAR A. TSARNAEV, Defendant.
More informationPhillips v. Araneta, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV PR (AZ 6/29/2004) (AZ, 2004)
Page 1 KENNETH PHILLIPS, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE LOUIS ARANETA, JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, in and for the County of Maricopa, Respondent Judge, STATE OF ARIZONA, Real Party
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) v. ) CRIMINAL NO GAO ) DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV )
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 440 Filed 07/25/14 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) v. ) CRIMINAL NO. 13-10200-GAO ) DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV )
More informationCase 1:13-cr GAO Document 1492 Filed 07/08/15 Page 1 of 11 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case :-cr-00-gao Document Filed 0/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Criminal Action v. ) No. -00-GAO ) DZHOKHAR A.
More informationCase 1:13-cr GAO Document 418 Filed 07/15/14 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 418 Filed 07/15/14 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) Crim. No.13-10200-GAO ) DZHOKHAR A. TSARNAEV, ) Defendant
More informationCase 1:13-cr GAO Document 717 Filed 12/08/14 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 717 Filed 12/08/14 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) Crim. No.13-10200-GAO ) DZHOKHAR A. TSARNAEV, ) Defendant
More informationUNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) Crim. No GAO ) DZHOKHAR A. TSARNAEV, ) Defendant )
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1110 Filed 03/02/15 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) Crim. No.13-10200-GAO ) DZHOKHAR A. TSARNAEV, )
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Criminal Action v. ) No. -00-GAO ) DZHOKHAR A. TSARNAEV, also ) known as Jahar Tsarni, ) )
More informationCase 1:13-cr GAO Document Filed 12/17/14 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 766-1 Filed 12/17/14 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) Crim. No.13-10200-GAO ) DZHOKHAR A. TSARNAEV, )
More informationCase 1:18-cr NGG-VMS Document 308 Filed 01/30/19 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 3048
Case 1:18-cr-00204-NGG-VMS Document 308 Filed 01/30/19 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 3048 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, - v. - KEITH RANIERE, CLARE BRONFMAN,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA JESSE L. BLANTON, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) versus ) CASE NO. SC04-1823 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Respondent. ) ) ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, FIFTH
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) CRIMINAL NO GAO ) DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV )
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1237 Filed 04/01/15 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) CRIMINAL NO. 13-10200-GAO ) DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV )
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS. Case No. PRETRIAL AND CRIMINAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v., Defendant(s). Case No. PRETRIAL AND CRIMINAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER The defendant(s), appeared for
More informationCASE NUMBER: DIV 71. It appearing that this case is at issue and can be set for trial, it is ORDERED as follows:
Plaintiff(s), vs. Defendant(s). / IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NUMBER: DIV 71 UNIFORM ORDER REGARDING SETTING CASE FOR JURY TRIAL, PRE-TRIAL
More informationREDACTED MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH ORDER D [D-263] CERTIFICATE OF CONFERRAL
REDACTED District Court, Arapahoe County, Colorado Filed Arapahoe County Courthouse 7325 S. Potomac St., Centennial, CO 80112 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, DEC 2 4 2014 Plaintiff CLERK OF THE COMBINED
More informationNC General Statutes - Chapter 15A Article 100 1
SUBCHAPTER XV. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. Article 100. Capital Punishment. 15A-2000. Sentence of death or life imprisonment for capital felonies; further proceedings to determine sentence. (a) Separate Proceedings
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS GOVERNMENT S PROPOSED GUILT-PHASE PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 1098 Filed 02/27/15 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) Crim. No.13-10200-GAO ) DZHOKHAR A. TSARNAEV, )
More informationReligious Beliefs, Motion for Voir Dire on Sentence Length, and Motion for Voir
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JOHNSON COUNTY, KANSAS CRIMINAL COURT DEPARTMENT STATE OF KANSAS, Plaintiff, VS. FRAZIER GLENN CROSS, JR., Defendant. 14CR853 Div. 17 STATE S BRIEF RE: JURY SELECTION COMES NOW
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) V. ) CR. NO.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, V. CR. NO. 89-1234, Defendant. MOTION TO AMEND 28 U.S.C. 2255 MOTION Defendant, through undersigned counsel,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. Docket No ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 42532 STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MICHAEL BRIAN WILSON, Defendant-Appellant. 2015 Opinion No. 69 Filed: October 29, 2015 Stephen W.
More informationCase 3:15-cr AJB Document 11 Filed 06/10/15 Page 1 of 4
Case :-cr-0-ajb Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 0 DONOVAN & DONOVAN Barbara M. Donovan, Esq. California State Bar Number: The Senator Building 0 West F. Street San Diego, California 0 Telephone: ( - Attorney
More informationCase 1:09-cr BMC-RLM Document 189 Filed 02/08/18 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 2176 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Case 1:09-cr-00466-BMC-RLM Document 189 Filed 02/08/18 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 2176 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES : : v. : : Criminal No. 09-0466(BMC) JOAQUÍN
More informationDeadly Justice. A Statistical Portrait of the Death Penalty. Appendix B. Mitigating Circumstances State-By-State.
Deadly Justice A Statistical Portrait of the Death Penalty Frank R. Baumgartner Marty Davidson Kaneesha Johnson Arvind Krishnamurthy Colin Wilson University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Department
More informationCase4:07-cv PJH Document1171 Filed05/29/12 Page1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case:0-cv-0-PJH Document Filed0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 ORACLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Plaintiff, No. C 0- PJH v. FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER SAP AG, et al.,
More informationCase 5:06-cr TBR-JDM Document 202 Filed 03/23/2009 Page 1 of 29
Case 5:06-cr-00019-TBR-JDM Document 202 Filed 03/23/2009 Page 1 of 29 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT PADUCAH (Filed Electronically) CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 5:06CR-19-R UNITED
More informationCase 1:07-cr BSJ Document 45 Filed 05/21/2008 Page 1 of 10. PAUL C. BARNABA, : 07 Cr. 220 (BSJ)
Case 1:07-cr-00220-BSJ Document 45 Filed 05/21/2008 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------x UNITED STATES OF
More informationCase 1:15-cr CG-B Document 243 Filed 11/09/15 Page 1 of 8
Case 1:15-cr-00102-CG-B Document 243 Filed 11/09/15 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. CRIMINAL NO. 15-00102-CG
More informationHOMICIDE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES STATE ATTORNEY S OFFICE, FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, FLORIDA
OFFICE OF THE STATE ATTORNEY FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 311 W. Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 HOMICIDE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES STATE ATTORNEY S OFFICE, FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, FLORIDA 1.010 Purposes
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PATENT CASE SCHEDULE. Answer or Other Response to Complaint 5 weeks
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PATENT CASE SCHEDULE Event Service of Complaint Scheduled Time Total Time After Complaint Answer or Other Response to Complaint 5 weeks Initial
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON C ATLANTA JUDICIAL CIRCUIT STATE OF GEORGIA * * * JUDGE SHAWN ELLEN LaGRUA
COpy IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON C ATLANTA JUDICIAL CIRCUIT STATE OF GEORGIA FILED IN OFFICE TYFEB 1 7 2017 INRE: CRIMINAL CASE MANAGEMENT * JUDGE SHAWN ELLEN LaGRUA * * STANDING CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. No. 11-00224-01/02-CR-W-DW JOSHUA SIMONSON, a/k/a Joshua Michael of Simonson,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, v. CASE NO. SC04-0485 5D03-120 STEVEN EUGENE ISELEY, Respondent. / ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL PETITIONER
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 117,270. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, BRENT L. ALFORD, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 117,270 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. BRENT L. ALFORD, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. An appellate court applies a de novo standard of review to a district
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Doc. 210 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action
More informationCase 1:18-cv ABJ Document 19 Filed 02/13/18 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Plaintiff, Defendants.
Case 1:18-cv-00011-ABJ Document 19 Filed 02/13/18 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR., Plaintiff, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ROD J. ROSENSTEIN,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
Case: 14-2362 Document: 00116781962 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/01/2015 Entry ID: 5876910 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT Appeal No. 14-2362 IN RE: DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV, Petitioner GOVERNMENT
More informationORDER ON ARRAIGNMENT
Case 2:10-cr-00186-MHT -WC Document 132 Filed 10/18/10 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) CR NO. 2:10cr186-MHT
More informationThird, it should provide for the orderly admission of evidence.
REPORT The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, most state rules, and many judges authorize or require the parties to prepare final pretrial submissions that will set the parameters for how the trial will
More informationCase 9:16-cr RLR Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/03/2017 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 9:16-cr-80107-RLR Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/03/2017 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, vs. Plaintiff, GREGORY HUBBARD, Defendant. / UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
More informationCase 1:05-cr EWN Document 295 Filed 03/22/2007 Page 1 of 12
Case 1:05-cr-00545-EWN Document 295 Filed 03/22/2007 Page 1 of 12 Criminal Case No. 05 cr 00545 EWN IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Edward W. Nottingham UNITED STATES
More informationCase 1:13-cr DPW Document 240 Filed 06/09/14 Page 1 of 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 1:13-cr-10238-DPW Document 240 Filed 06/09/14 Page 1 of 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) ) Crim. No. 13-10238-DPW AZAMAT TAZHAYAKOV ) ) Defendant
More informationIn the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court Building in the City of Richmond, on Thursday, the 3rd day of March, 2005.
VIRGINIA: In the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court Building in the City of Richmond, on Thursday, the 3rd day of March, 2005. Christopher Scott Emmett, Petitioner, against Record No.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT PADUCAH (Filed Electronically) CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 5:06CR-19-R UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT PADUCAH (Filed Electronically) CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 5:06CR-19-R UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF, vs. STEVEN DALE GREEN, DEFENDANT. DEFENDANT
More informationIN THE THIRD DISTRICT COURT, WEST JORDAN DEPARTMENT IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SALT LAKE, STATE OF UTAH
SIM GILL District Attorney for Salt Lake County MELANIE M. SERASSIO, Bar No. 8273 Deputy District Attorney 111 East Broadway, Suite 400 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone: (385) 468-7600 IN THE THIRD
More informationOverview of Pretrial & Trial Procedure. Basic Concepts. What is Proof (Evidence) David Hamilton City Attorney Reno & Honey Grove Tx.
Overview of Pretrial & Trial Procedure David Hamilton City Attorney Reno & Honey Grove Tx Basic Concepts PresumptionofInnocence:BurdenonStateto erase presumption by proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. Absolute
More informationHicks v. State of Alabama. Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals Alex Thrasher*
Hicks v. State of Alabama Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals Alex Thrasher* The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals will primarily consider three issues in Hicks v. State of Alabama. First, the court will
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) v. ) Crim. No GAO ) DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV )
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 233 Filed 03/28/14 Page 1 of 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) v. ) Crim. No. 13-10200-GAO ) DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV ) FURTHER
More informationCase 1:10-cr RDB Document 113 Filed 05/10/11 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Case 1:10-cr-00181-RDB Document 113 Filed 05/10/11 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA * v. * Criminal No. 1:10-cr-0181-RDB THOMAS ANDREWS
More informationThe State s brief in response to the Cafaro defendants motion to enlarge time, previously filed under seal, shall be unsealed. The Cafaro defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MAHONING COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO 2010 CR 800 Plaintiff December 21, 2010 Vs. DECISION AND ORDER ANTHONY M. CAFARO, JR. THE CAFARO COMPANY (A) JUDGE WILLIAM H. WOLFF, JR..
More informationFederal Adaptation of NLADA s Performance Guidelines For Criminal Defense Representations 1
Federal Adaptation of NLADA s Performance Guidelines For Criminal Defense Representations 1 Note: These standards are intended as a guide to help ensure that people entitled to representation under the
More informationDo Capital Jurors Understand Mitigation? Why mitigation? 4/13/2011. Aggravation vs. Mitigation
Do Capital Jurors Understand Mitigation? Why mitigation? According to 8th amendment capital sentence may not be imposed arbitrarily or capriciously. (There may be a bias by some jurors, contrary to the
More informationFall, Criminal Litigation 9/4/17. Criminal Litigation: Arraignment to Appeal. How Do We Get A Case?
Fall, 2017 F Criminal Litigation 20 17 Criminal Litigation: Arraignment to Appeal! Something must go wrong.! A wrongful act must occur. How Do We Get A Case?! If the law states that the wrongful act is
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
[Cite as State v. Hughbanks, 159 Ohio App.3d 257, 2004-Ohio-6429.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO THE STATE OF OHIO, Appellee, v. HUGHBANKS, Appellant. APPEAL
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF JACKSON BUSINESS COURT DIVISION. via telephone (check one) /
STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF JACKSON BUSINESS COURT DIVISION PLAINTIFF NAME v. DEFENDANT NAME Case No. Hon. Richard N. LaFlamme / PLAINTIFF S COUNSEL NAME, ADDRESS, PHONE AND
More informationAGENCY BILL ANALYSIS 2017 REGULAR SESSION WITHIN 24 HOURS OF BILL POSTING, ANALYSIS TO: and
LFC Requester: AGENCY BILL ANALYSIS 2017 REGULAR SESSION WITHIN 24 HOURS OF BILL POSTING, EMAIL ANALYSIS TO: LFC@NMLEGIS.GOV and DFA@STATE.NM.US {Include the bill no. in the email subject line, e.g., HB2,
More information*** CAPITAL CASE *** No
*** CAPITAL CASE *** No. 16-9541 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JEFFREY CLARK, Petitioner, v. STATE OF LOUISIANA, Respondent. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT PETITION FOR
More informationCase 2:18-cr JPS Filed 03/12/18 Page 1 of 16 Document 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN UNITED STA [ES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 18-CR- CRAIG HILBORN, Defendant. PLEA AGREEMENT 1. The United States of America, by its attorneys,
More informationCase 5:06-cr TBR Document 101 Filed 03/21/2008 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT PADUCAH
Case 5:06-cr-00019-TBR Document 101 Filed 03/21/2008 Page 1 of 11 CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 5:06 CR-00019-R UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT PADUCAH UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF
More informationJudicial Practice Preferences Circuit Civil/Section 11
Honorable Judge Amy M. Williams 545 First Avenue North, Room 417 St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Judicial Practice Preferences Circuit Civil/Section 11 2018 JURY TRIAL WEEKS December 3 2019 JURY TRIAL WEEKS JANUARY
More informationBEFORE THE INVESTIGATIVE PANEL OF THE FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION STATE OF FLORIDA NOTICE OF FORMAL CHARGES
BEFORE THE INVESTIGATIVE PANEL OF THE FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION STATE OF FLORIDA INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE NO. 09-48 and 08-162 RE: JUDGE ANA GARDINER / NOTICE OF FORMAL CHARGES TO: Honorable
More informationCase 1:17-cr RC Document 3 Filed 12/01/17 Page 1 of 10. United States v. Michael T. Flynn
Case 1:17-cr-00232-RC Document 3 Filed 12/01/17 Page 1 of 10 U.S. Department of Justice The Special Counsel's Office Washington, D.C. 20530 November 30, 2017 Robert K. Kelner Stephen P. Anthony Covington
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 12 11 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CHARLES L. RYAN, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, VS. STEVEN CRAIG JAMES, Petitioner, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO. Plaintiff, No. 17-cr JB MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS 1 AND 5 OF THE INDICTMENT
Case 1:17-cr-00965-JB Document 72 Filed 09/24/18 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, vs. Plaintiff, No. 17-cr-00965-JB KIRBY CLEVELAND,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CRIMINAL ACTION NO. Plaintiff, 4:-04-CR-175 v. XXX XXX XXX, Defendant. MOTION FOR SEVERANCE AND MEMORANDUM
More informationTHE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA SENATE BILL INTRODUCED BY LEACH, HAYWOOD, HUGHES AND BLAKE, MAY 8, 2017 AN ACT
PRINTER'S NO. 0 THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA SENATE BILL No. 0 Session of 0 INTRODUCED BY LEACH, HAYWOOD, HUGHES AND BLAKE, MAY, 0 REFERRED TO JUDICIARY, MAY, 0 AN ACT 0 Amending Titles (Crimes
More informationThe Legal Process: The Adversary System and Dispute Resolution
The Legal Process: The Adversary System and Dispute Resolution The adversary system of trial, sometimes called the sporting approach to the truth, recalls our commitment to democracy as the least corruptible
More informationCase 1:17-cv MLW Document 222 Filed 04/03/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 1:17-cv-11008-MLW Document 222 Filed 04/03/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS JANSSEN BIOTECH, INC., Plaintiff, v. No. 1:17-cv-11008 CELLTRION HEALTHCARE CO., LTD.,
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) CASE NO. CR ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) JOURNAL ENTRY ) ELIJAH FRAZIER ) ) Defendant. )
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO CASE NO. CR 11 549274 Plaintiff, vs. JOURNAL ENTRY ELIJAH FRAZIER Defendant. On April 20, 2011, defendant Elijah Frazier was indicted on
More informationThe Jurisprudence of Justice John Paul Stevens: Selected Opinions on the Jury s Role in Criminal Sentencing
The Jurisprudence of Justice John Paul Stevens: Selected Opinions on the Jury s Role in Criminal Sentencing Anna C. Henning Legislative Attorney June 7, 2010 Congressional Research Service CRS Report for
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Waller v. City and County of Denver et al Doc. 157 Civil Action 1:14-cv-02109-WYD-NYW ANTHONY WALLER, v. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Plaintiff, BRADY LOVINGIER, in
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. No. 13-CR Hon. Gerald E. Rosen Magistrate Judge Mona K.
2:13-cr-20764-PDB-MKM Doc # 587 Filed 08/10/15 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 7354 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Plaintiff, vs. No. 13-CR-20764
More informationOverview of Trial Proceedings Role of Judge/Jury, Markman Hearings, and Introduction to Evidence
Role of Judge/Jury, Markman Hearings, and Introduction to Evidence July 21, 2016 Drew DeVoogd, Member Patent Trial Proceedings in the United States In patent matters, trials typically occur in the federal
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 117,375 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. AARON WILDY, Appellant, STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 117,375 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS AARON WILDY, Appellant, v. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION 2017. Affirmed. Appeal from Wyandotte
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CASE NO. SC TH DCA CASE NO. 4D
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CASE NO. SC-11-1477 4 TH DCA CASE NO. 4D08-4729 BRIAN HOOKS, ) Petitioner, ) vs. ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) Respondent. ) ) PETITIONER S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
More informationCriminal Justice in America CJ Chapter 10 James J. Drylie, Ph.D.
Criminal Justice in America CJ 2600 Chapter 10 James J. Drylie, Ph.D. Pretrial Activities & The Criminal Trial This chapter will examine the criminal trial process. Highlights of the chapter will include
More informationCase 6:18-cr RBD-DCI Document 59 Filed 08/16/18 Page 1 of 9 PageID 393 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION
Case 6:18-cr-00043-RBD-DCI Document 59 Filed 08/16/18 Page 1 of 9 PageID 393 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CASE NO. 6:18-cr-43-Orl-37DCI
More informationTREVINO v. TEXAS. on petition for writ of certiorari to the court of criminal appeals of texas
562 OCTOBER TERM, 1991 TREVINO v. TEXAS on petition for writ of certiorari to the court of criminal appeals of texas No. 91 6751. Decided April 6, 1992 Before jury selection began in petitioner Trevino
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 12-00075-01-CR-W-DW MARCUS D. GAMMAGE, Defendant. GOVERNMENT'S
More informationCase 3:14-cr MMD-VPC Document 64 Filed 06/19/15 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * Plaintiff, ORDER v.
Case :-cr-000-mmd-vpc Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. :-cr-000-mmd-vpc Plaintiff, ORDER v. KYLE ARCHIE and LINDA
More informationMOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER PURSUANT TO FED.R.CRIM.P.16(d)(1)
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 225 Filed 03/17/14 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) Crim. No.13-10200-GAO ) DZHOKHAR A. TSARNAEV, ) Defendant
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 117,322. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, JERRY D. RICE, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 117,322 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. JERRY D. RICE, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. Interpretation of a sentencing statute is a question of law, and
More information(a) Except as provided in K.S.A Supp and , and amendments thereto, if a
Special Session of 2013 HOUSE BILL NO. AN ACT concerning crimes, punishment and criminal procedure; relating to sentencing of certain persons to mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 40 or 50 years;
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 LENNELL DUNBAR, Plaintiff, v. EMW INC., Defendant. Case No.: :-CV-00- JLT SCHEDULING ORDER (Fed. R. Civ. P. Pleading Amendment Deadline:
More informationJudicial Assistant s > ALWAYS copy opposing counsel(s) on correspondence to the Court
Honorable Judge Amy M. Williams 545 First Avenue North, Room 417 St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Judicial Practice Preferences Circuit Civil/Section 11 2019 JURY TRIAL WEEKS *ALL ONE WEEK DOCKETS* JANUARY 7 FEBRUARY
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. v. NO. 31,852
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule -0 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note
More informationIntended that deadly force would be used in the course of the felony.] (or)
Page 1 of 38 150.10 NOTE WELL: This instruction and the verdict form which follows include changes required by Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782, 102 S.Ct. 3368, 73 L.Ed.2d 1140 (1982), Cabana v. Bullock,
More information